Sunday, May 15, 2011

Some believe that the "birthers" should be embarrassed. They believe that Obama could have released his birth certificate a long time ago, but instead suckered the “birthers” in and then at the opportune time, released the document for maximum political gain. They conclude that Obama is a very clever guy and has therefore won the birth certificate game.

At worst, this is Obama’s enablers’ continuing fraudulent cover for Obama and at best their wishful thinking regarding his hoped-for political cunningness.

Obama is not clever at all. It took him over 2 and ½ years to finally release his long-form Certificate of Live Birth. I do not believe he held on to that certificate for some political advantage. Even if the birth certificate is real, he has lost millions of voters for his cowardly conduct in not releasing it in due course to the people he is supposed to serve like a normal Presidential candidate should. His conduct is even more reprehensible given that his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth does not contain any information which he would have had any interest in keeping confidential and he has caused our nation to lose incalculable millions of dollars in public and private time and resources arguing about his birth certificate. And let us not forget that he allowed a highly decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, to go to prison for 6 months rather than just release the document.

Even though Obama has released a computer scan of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth, there is still an open question whether the underlying paper birth certificate is real. We can hardly say that it is real when the underlying paper document which was supposed to be filled in with a typewriter in 1961 shows evidence of kerning (a certain way letters are graphically printed which cannot be done with a typewriter in 1961).

But in the end, even if the birth certificate is real, it proves Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," a child born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to a U.S. citizen father and mother. This means that a “natural born Citizen” inherits his or her allegiance and U.S. citizenship from being born to U.S. citizen parents and from being born on U.S. soil rather than acquiring them from a positive law which is what a naturalized citizen does. This positive law naturalizes a person to be a U.S. citizen “at birth” when he or she is born abroad to one or two U.S. citizen parents (missing U.S. place of birth and in some cases also at the same time only having one U.S. citizen parent) or born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents (missing two U.S. citizen parents).

Obama's father was born in 1934 or 1936 in the British colony of Kenya. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he was born a British citizen (a “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”). While he came temporarily to America on a student visa to study, he never became nor ever intended to become a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Obama was born, his father was a British citizen, and under that same Act Obama himself inherited from his father British citizenship. Obama, if born in Hawaii, therefore, did not inherit his U.S. citizenship from his natural parents but rather acquired it by positive law, i.e., the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), which naturalizes persons who are born in the U.S. but lack two U.S. citizen parents to be U.S. citizens “at birth.” Hence, Obama can be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he is not an Article II "natural born” citizen. Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander of our military forces.

60
comments:

Your Lakin accusation is dead on. Obama and the judge own Dr. Lakin an apology, if not more.

BC activists and forgery analysts have been setting themselves up for years. At least now, when the 'sucker punch' wears off, they can turn their attention to the real issue.

In consideration of Dr. Ramsey's Dissertation, and the 1790 Act through current statute, Obama, Sr. was a 'non-immigrant alien' on a student visa. Of one U.S. parent, Obama was a U.S. citizen at birth by positive law, i.e, through naturalization.

Natural born citizens have two U.S. citizen parents. It may be true that if born outside U.S. territory, they are still 'as natural born citizens,' as stated in the 1790 Act and SR511.

Those who inherit U.S. citizenship are minors whose parent naturalizes.

Please forgive me for repeating myself, but I can reproduce the 'kerning' noted in the WH BC on my Underwood standard. All it requires is the second key striking before the platen fully indexes.

If this matter ever gets to court, the certified copy will be produced, athenticated, and we can move on from there.

At this point it wouldn't matter where he was born or who his parents are. The media spun this issue to the max. The fact of the matter is that alot of voters are just not that savy. The bc has been produced and they are satisfied.

Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (read CT ssn) that the bc is a forgery, this issue has been killed by the media. Trump could not be ignored, however, and has been silent since.

It will be extremely difficult to get this front and center again before the public. Our only hope is through the courts. That said we have clients with undisputable standing, rulings from courts that state its too early or too late to file and completed research. So now all we need is one courageous lawyer (Mario) and candidates to sue before and after the next coming election processes, armed with those rulings and non-responses from congress, which should finally nail the judiciary to act.

It will be to the detriment of the republic should the bc ever be mentioned again, right or wrongly.

Dr. Conspiracy had the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate examined by an expert. Below is what the expert wrote. The word “Kenya” appears on the pre-printed part of the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate, not on any part that was typed with a typewriter. In any event, you can see how critical the kerning issue is.

Also, the problem with Dr. Conspiracy’s kerning analysis of the Smith birth certificate is that the alleged kerning on the pre-printed form could have been done in 1961 at a professional printer but it cannot be done with a typewriter. Lucas Smith explains: "Offset Lithography became the most popular form of commercial printing in the 1950s. The birth certificate template, of form, was most likely created on an offset lithography printing press. . . and NOT a letterpress."

Dr. Conspiracy responds: "However, you fail to say how offset lithography explains the kerning of “ny” that is probably the central argument of the article. . . . Should you at any time wish explain the “ny” . . . feel free to drop by."

Here is what Dr. Conspiracy’s expert said about the Lucas Smith certificate:

“The nail in the coffin that this is a forgery comes from a type issue we take for granted these days. In the line at the top which reads, Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya…. The give away is the kerning of the letters n and y in the word Kenya. The y is nestled beneath the n and it is impossible to duplicate that on a Linotype or in handset. No ligatures exist for that combination in metal or in mold. I know this for fact. When digital computer fonts are designed, the metrics or mechanical way letters sit together are refined into what is called kerning pairs. Two letters that will look better when set is what type designers do for a living. The word Kenya has this kerning pair of the n and y. This can only be done on a computer. There are a few other instances of this kerning issue in the document as well.

One other thing to consider. What is the actual size of the document? You cannot use the PDF for extracting that info, because it has been distorted by copying many times and poor scanning. European paper sizes are much different than US paper sizes.I will examine this closer when I have a moment, but off the cuff, it’s a fake."

Then, Dr. Conspiracy adds his comments: "To illustrate the writers point, here are two images: the first showing 'ny' from the Smith certificate, and the second showing 'ny' from a book printed in 1942 I happened to have in my library. The descender on the 'y' actually tucks under the 'n' in the Smith certificate, but clearly not in the book example."

Note his expert called the kerning issue “the nail in the coffin.” You should see Dr. Conspiracy and his followers salivate at having what they erroneously believed was such a wonderful discovery about the Smith document. You can follow them along at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/typography-on-the-lucas-smith-kenyan-birth-certificate/ where you will also find the above quotes.

I wonder why Dr. Conspiracy did not have that same expert address the kerning issue raised about Obama’s alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth? After all, he is such an expert on typewriters, printers, and kerning but we do not hear a single word from his expert. Rather, Dr. Conspiracy writes some weak article about his personal view on kerning which can be read here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/cottage-industry/.

So what can we say about Dr. Conspiracy? He hires the big guns when he wants to debunk others on some issue (which he did not do with the Smith birth certificate). But when that same issue is used against him, we do not hear from that same expert but rather get Dr. Conspiracy's little kerning experiment explanation. Does that sound like some truth seeker to you?

You keep insisting that your personal experiment with your Underwood produced kerning. I have answered you that looking at your results simply dooes not show kerning. I explained to you that in the first "y" there is no kerning. With the second "y," while there is ink from the "y" smearing a bit which causes it to become thicker than the first "y" and extend slightly toward the "n" which preceded it, there still is no kerning. That smeared ink in the letter "y" is probably the result of the "y" key being struck harder by you which you would have done in your attempt to create the kerning.

Additionally, while you allege that it was probably an Underwood, you have not identified with any reasonable certainty the brand of the typewriter that was used in the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

Finally, if your kerning opinion is to carry even a slight amount of credibility, you also have to tell us whether the Obama typist used an electric or manual typewriter.

You need evidence to convince anyone of your position. You have not provided the opinion of any expert in the field of typewriters, printing, and computers to support your position that a typewriter can produce kerning the way that we see it in the word "Kapiolani" in Obama's alleged birth certificate.

As you know I have never posted on blog in the past. I do sometimes read your blog. I don’t agree with much that you have ever written but this latest article about the birth certificate is a disgrace and, other than Corsi’s editorials from 2009, this has got the be one of the most egregiously misguiding articles that I’ve ever read on skeptics website or blog.

The author, and supposed expert pressman, wants us to believe that the entire document should have been created on a letter letterpress. The author supplies us with nothing more than his subjective biased, misleading, overreaching, cozen and outright vituperative opinion to back up his claims that the 1961 document template or form should have been created on a letterpress.

The truth of the matter is that Offset Lithography became the most popular form of commercial printing in the 1950s. The birth certificate template, of form, was most likely created on an offset lithography printing press.

The author wants the reader to believe, on faith, that the birth certificate template, or form, was created in much the same manner that the Guttenberg bible was printed in the 1450s, with tiny little letter, much like those on a typewriter, arranged together on a plate.

I am familiar with offset lithography (worked on a huge monster of and older Whelan and also a Komori) and it’s obvious, conspicuously, that birth certificate was created on an offset lithography press and NOT a letterpress.

Anonymous email, filed with nothing more than drivel and wholly unsubstantiated claims. This is an all time low.

I am posting this on my youtube forum. Let your new blog report stand as a testament to the unethical lengths that skeptics will go to discredit the 1961 CPGH Obama birth certificate.

Good night.

Lucas D. Smith

I have no experience in these technical details. I trust Mario Apuzzo. When this problem is worked out, I hope Mario will do a little write up on the Lucas Smith document. Until then I will reserve judgement.

Until then I continue to read every day on this topic. I want Obama out of the WH. I personally believe Obama was born in Kenya. But even that is not critical. He is definitely not a NBC because he was born British. End of discussion. Throw the bum out.

All of this is moot. You can argue until tomorrow morning about kerning and what not. The state of Hawaii, on it's official website, has the following statement, followed by a link to the White House released document:

"On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth."

While the first commercially successful electric typewriters entered the open market in 1961, they did not become the ‘standard’ until the 1970’s.

In the 1960’s, most offices used the mechanical standard models such as the Royal and Underwood.

The proof of a mechanical typewriter being used to write Obama’s WHBC, specifically the Underwood standard, are the unique ‘font’ of the numeral ‘8,’ the identical font of the numeral one and lower case ‘L,’ and miscarried Shifts on the capital letter. See ‘Oahu’ in space 6b and ‘Kansas’ in 16.

As for the ‘kerning’ in ‘Kapiolani,’ the overlapping of the ‘ap’ and ‘an’ may just be the result of the poor image quality due to posting on the web. I enlarged the WH pdf file and the pixilation is horribly choppy. Also, the lack of ‘proportional’ spacing is evident throughout the typed BC . . .

As to my experiment, I e-mailed you the actual 720 dpi file comparing the lack of ‘kerning’ in the steadily paced typing of ‘111ty’ and then a fast ‘ty’ typed four spaces away.

Now, I have six-thousand fonts on CD-ROMs and can pull up all of the fonts emulating typewriters . . . but I can assure you now that they will not incorporate kerning, or proportional spacing.

Nevertheless, my recommendation is to cease and desist analyzing a very poor digital file from the Internet, and instead concentrate on the fact that Obama is the son of a British citizen, and that native-born children of at least one alien parent is a citizen by ‘positive law,’ as you so aptly describe the necessity of applying naturalization law to such a birth, as opposed to the birth to two U.S. citizens.

In addition, from the 1790 Act to SR511, ‘place of birth’ is not a contributing factor to presidential eligibility . . . that is a major distinction.

New video release comparing of the obvious Kerning in the Obama alleged long from BC put on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 to the lack of same Kerning in the Nordyke long form BC, born within one day of each other and according to Obama, at the same hospital.

Yes and dual citizenship also at least for now. He doubled down on stupid and won. In fact I think he was surprised by his win. He would have made a ton of money even had he lost.

Only restoring the rule of law can give the citizens justice. At this time there is no rule of law.

As I recall one of those fools said we make it up as we go. Nancy said one of my people said it was legal. The best was when that so called judge said it was on fact check and the internet and that was good enough for him.

I think of all those that have given their all over the years. It makes me very sad to see such stupid people in power as we have today.

I know why he didn't show the "long form" until this point: He didn't have one. Perhaps better put, Hawai'i hadn't created one for him.

As others have said, it has actually now become a conspiracy and not an issue of "forgeries". Does an online image mean anything?

No, but the fact that HDOH has linked it and the form has been shown to a few media outlets stamped makes me believe that they DO in fact have a document, however UNoriginal it is.

The story is so inconsistent, this has to be the reality:

I'm guessing all of the COLB images initially were put out to to buy time for the Obama LAW camp to convince HDOH to compile a "long form" birth certificate.

Obviously, this form was not yet created when Abercrombie opened his stupid mouth and realized that there was no form available. Think of it: How do we go from Fukino's half written/half typed description of the "original" vital stats, then on to Neil Abercrombie's "I can't find it" to "Oh, here is the long form" within that short of a period of time?

They convinced Hawaii to make the document under some crazy statutes. This is why people have a hard time trusting law. It's about the argument, generally, NOT the realities ...

As I see it there are only 3 avenues left:

1. Stanley Ann's passport records 1960-65 that have been "destroyed"2. The birth certificate number order problem (possibly baby Virginia if that story is in fact true and leading somewhere)3. Identity / SSN fraud

ONLY these will be a smoking gun and bring attention back. If you don't get one of these, you'll be blogging about irrelevant stuff like "KERNING" until kingdom come ...

I do not understand why you would rather want to pursue theories of "destroyed" passport records, the birth certificate number problem, and identity fraud, but not the kerning issue.

I have been harping on the kerning issue because kerning provides real, concrete evidence of forgery. It is much easier to pursue than some of the other theories you have raised, for the evidence is right before our eyes rather than who knows where. Even Dr. Conspiracy attempted although unsuccessfully to use it to show that the Lucas Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate is a forgery.

So can you explain why your theories are better than the kerning theory?

Also, just today a new video by PPSimmons came out on the kerning evidence which can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vFN2FFu2U. It shows how much kerning exists in the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. It also shows how the Nordyck twins' birth certificate from the same time as the Obama alleged birth has no such kerning. What do you say about all that?

Given all the visible kerning in the Obama birth certificate, can you provide an explanation for it? Can you reasonably show us that the kerning was caused by a manual typewriter used in 1961 or that it was caused by some computer scanning process when the paper document was scanned onto the White House web site?

I understand where you are coming from. First off, please know that I AGREE with you. The document was created (recently) as I said in my last post.

But so what? I haven't seen anyone claim that was an original or exact copy from 1961. Furthermore, the stamp on it says that it is verifies that it may be an "abstract" --- does it not?

You said,"So can you explain why your theories are better than the kerning theory?"

Yes. Mine aren't THEORIES. They are methods of getting action. You can talk about all the abnormalities until you are blue in the face but the reality is that HDOH has signed off on the document, however screwy they were in validating it or allowing it to be "compiled." That means you will get nowhere, you'll just keep blogging on it.

My objective is to bust President Shady. That is the point of my post. So please,Answer this question:

When they produce a copy that is JUST like what you see on the internet and it is stamped and given a proper seal, what will your recourse be, then? See what I mean? You have to prove he lied with the public information that has been released. That means finding irrefutable, contradictory evidence such as 1,2,3 that I've stated.

Kerning is just going to be, and already has been, "He said She said." Let's face the facts.

In order to be entitled to maintain a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff must show that there exists a real live controvery between the plaintiff and defendant. Hence, even with a declaratory judgment action, you still need a real defendant.

Let me get this straight. No one, for two years, examines the COLB even though factcheck had no business "inspecting" it or verifying it as you and I have always rightfully said. There were many reasons to believe that that was a forgery. There may be a few more reasons why this one seems to be, but the reality is that NOW public sentiment backing the birthers has dropped DRAMATICALLY. So what do we have? A worse scenario where we're still screaming about a document. No court looked then and there were many more questions. You think anyone is going to look now?

Get a smoking gun.

I'm not sure what you don't get about this. I'm just telling you how it is. Warning, I'm about to put it in CAPS:

YOU NEED TO CONTRADICT OBAMA with INFO RELEASED TO PUT IT ALL BACK INTO DOUBT.

Then, and only then, will they look into the obvious and newly created document known as the "long form"

"In order to be entitled to maintain a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff must show that there exists a real live controvery between the plaintiff and defendant. Hence, even with a declaratory judgment action, you still need a real defendant."

Ok, is there a legal standing problem in such a matter, where the defendant is not a target for redress and declaratory/definition ruling is all that is required?

Some food for thought with the aim of exploring a means to have Article II NBC eligibility clause defined by the court without any particular defendant.

"Administrative reviewThe procedure for judicial review of federal administrative regulation in the United States is set forth by the Administrative Procedure Act although the courts have ruled such as in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents that a person may bring a case on the grounds of an implied cause of action when no statutory procedure exists."

Could it be said that the US Constitution itself is an 'act'?then move to ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_cause_of_action"Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law. Implied causes of action arising under the Constitution of the United States are treated differently than those based on statutes."and"The ultimate question," the Court concluded, "is one of legislative intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law." Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor have stated that they believe Touche Ross effectively overruled the older Cort v. Ash test"

Further to my previous post.Looking for a way to have court have Art II NBC clause defined, by using redress of grievances as an implied source of plaintiffs' rights found in the substantive provisions of the Constitution [Act] which they seek to enforce.http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/560/case.html"The central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action."

"The ultimate question is one of congressional intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law."----------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_cause_of_action"Very shortly after Cannon was decided, the Court adopted what legal scholars have called a new approach to the issue in Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington (1979).[7] At issue was an implied right under another section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Court said that the first three factors mentioned in Cort v. Ash were simply meant to be "relied upon in determining legislative intent."[8] "The ultimate question," the Court concluded, "is one of legislative intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law."Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor have stated that they believe Touche Ross effectively overruled the older Cort v. Ash test"

"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a “strict constructionist,” despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction.” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted."

"And finally, this is what I will conclude with although it is not on a happy note. The worst thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution."

In order to be entitled to maintain a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff must show that there exists a real live controvery between the plaintiff and defendant. Hence, even with a declaratory judgment action, you still need a real defendant."

What about suing the NDP for there nomination stating Obama was Constitutionally eligible?

"Actus reus element

Most requirements for a successful Actus Reus require a voluntary act, or omission, for evidence of fault. There is also a requirement for a clear causation, there is no liability or fault if the defendant was not actually the sole cause of the act, this is so if there was an intervention of a third party, an unexpected natural event, or the victims own act. Either of these can remove the legal blame from the defendant and remove the fault."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_%28legal%29

Pretend that the WHBC of April 27 is "real" and thoroughly analyze itgiving special attention to the certificate number compared to those of the Nordyke girls. This means set aside the idea that Barky's numer 10641 was stolen from a dead child. Look only at the WHBC as fact.

What do you come up with??? That Barky was not only NOT born in Kapiolani, he was not born in ANY HI hospital - as shown here:

Obama's supporters argue that there is no proof that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Therefore case closed.

But this statement has the burden of proof reversed. The proof that is needed is that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is his burden of proof. So far we have the computer images of the 2008 Certification of Live Birth (short form) and the 2011 Certificate of Live Birth (long form). On the 2011 image, among many other anomalies, it shows various instances of kerning which cannot occur on a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961. It has been shown yesterday at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vFN2FFu2U that there is no kerning on the Nordyk twins birth certificate which would have been typed at the same time as the Obama birth certificate in the same hospital, Kapi'olani.

We also do not have any confirmation from Kapi'olani hospital that he was born there. Nor have we seen any other medical evidence showing a birth in Hawaii. This medical evidence is needed given the authenticity issues that exist with the online image of the long-form birth certificate placed on the White House web site.

Hence, Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.

Additionally, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" because when he was born his father was a British citizen.

I commented on your previous post that when I used Adobe Acrobat Reader at 300% magnification on Obama's certificate, I could see a circular pattern of small white circles and blotches that would conform to the outline of a seal.

Since then, I perfomed some experiments with copies of my Illinois birth certificate that I obtained in 2005. My birth certificate of 1941 was made before there was proportional typing. I have two copies and both have raised seals, but they are of very poor quality. I can barely make out some of the embossed letters. I am sure that modern technology could be used to reveal what I can't see.

Also the person who applied the seal was very careless or the machine was at fault. Both seals are "horseshoe shaped" by which I mean that only 3/4 of the circle of the seal made an impression.

I scanned one copy of the birth certificate and saved it in PDF format. At 100% magnifciation I can see markings where the seal was impressed.

There is even a typing anomaly on the certificate. My mother's maiden name ends in "on." The "o" and the "n" are darker than any of the other typed letters, which suggests that they were over striked. There is also another "n" that that appears approximately like this: onn, except that the darker "on" appears to be typed over the n underneath.

I have not yet explained the position of the "n" underneath. It does not appear to be in the expected character position.

My speculation is that the typist forget to type the "o" before the "n" and went back to correct the mistake and typed the final "on" twice.

The point is that a birth certificate and its certified copy can reflect human errors that would not necessarily invalidate the certificate. Much more evidence is needed and that addtional evidence can certainly be seen in the Obama certifcate.

(And for your amusement, the telephone number of the doctor was listed as three digits. You actually had to speak the number to the operator back then.)

Another analysis by a graphics professional. I have covered much of what he says here in my prior analysis. Actually, I gave more detail in how the "assembler" might have ended up with the graphical anomalies we're witnessing, but the conclusion is the same; the document was assembled. I believe this fellow is the one who gave a sworn affidavit for Orly's motion to intervene in the Salazar case.

Mario, I'm with you 100% on guys like gobillgo. It's weird that so many people are so interested in commenting on this issue that think people like us are crazy. To me it's a tacit recognition of the shadiness of O.

Now, let's take a step back. Say I'm wrong and the recent information gets more and more support delineating that the "Long Form" is bogus. Ok?

My question to you is this:

What recourse do we have this time. Isn't it the same issue rearing its head again and again? Who will look at it?

For this reason I always said that Trump had it wrong, priority wise. His first line should have been:

"Anyone can put an image on the internet."

THEN it should have gone to the problems with just a short form, if it is indeed true, etc.

If he had done that, he would still be covered and been able to vindicate himself more easily. The issue is the same for us who have complained. Let's have someone legal check it regarding proper image authorities. I do think, however at this point, some shady legal crafting was done to GIVE him a long form BC, and I imagine this was done VERY recently (ie within 2 years for "vital stats" and probably within months for the latest "long form").

Further to the idea of bringing the NDP to the court for stating without substantiation that Obama was a NBC.

"The actus reus generally differs from crime to crime. In murder it is homicide; in burglary it is the nocturnal breaking into the dwelling of another; in uttering a forged instrument it is the act of offering as good an instrument which is actually false. In like manner the mens rea differs from crime to crime. In murder it is malice aforethought; in burglary it is the intent to commit a felony; in uttering a forged instrument it is "knowledge" that the instrument is false plus an intent to defraud. Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law 830-831 (3rd ed. 1982). The actus reus must be causally related to the mens rea for a crime to occur: "An evil intention and an unlawful action must concur in order to constitute a crime." 93 N.E. 249. Although it is frequently said that no mens rea is required for a strict liability offense, the actus reus alone being sufficient (see e.g., 361 U.S. 147, 150 and 342 U.S. 246, 256), it is more useful to identify a special mens rea for the civil offense that recognizes the low level of culpability connected with a strict or civil offense. As to the act being sufficient even in the strict liability setting, a "guilty act" (as opposed to a coerced act for example) would seem required. Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 222-27 (2d ed. 1960)

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/actus-reus#ixzz1MeuXPF2C"

The actus reus in criminal law consists of all elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the defendant. In particular, actus reus may consist of: conduct, result, a state of affairs or an omission.

Conduct - the conduct itself might be criminal. Eg. the conduct of lying under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect on the outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct."

I do not like to speculate on what Obama did or did not do. Rather, I like to deal with him on a level of defining an Article II "natural born Citizen" and analyzing what his proffered documents and actions show or do not show.

More evidence that Obama's long form birth certificate PDF file posted on the White House servers is a fabricated forgery: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186343 Words were added to the image after the "book" was put in copier and copied/scanned to allegedly make the image. This is more proof this is not a simple copy of scan but a composite image that was fabricated from parts of other documents. Registration issues on various text lines extending to the left edge prove this. See video link above.

Puzo1 said..."MichaelN,So I see you have an interest in criminal law.Indeed, you would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the NDP committed a criminal act (actus reus) and that it had the requisite state of mind (mens rea) before doing it."

What about other than a criminal act?

"Actus reus is one of two components of a crime, the other being mens rea. Actus reus refers to the physical component of a crime, the act of committing the crime (eg: actually taking the stereo from someone's house).

Mens rea, in contrast, is the mental component of crime, the existence of a criminal intent, and this requires the offender to have intended to carry out the physical act.

Both components are required for conviction under criminal law although for some other laws, called laws of absolute liability, only the physical component is required.

The new Karl Denninger article and video which has been posted here by Commander Kerchner support what Douglas Vogt first discovered. The presentation shows how the underlying Obama birth certificate (the composite form) was scanned from a book. This is evidenced by the fact that the scan image shows the pages curving where they would be bound in the book. It also shows how some parts of the document were added after the document was scanned. That is proven by showing that the initial underlying scan shows curvature of text caused by when someone scans from a book. But the later added text is not consistent with the curved text on the underlying document. This is called a parallax problem. Hence, the later added text was added after the underlying document was scanned from the book. Some of the later added text which does not align with the underlying scanned image text includes the words "Kapiolani" (Line 6c) and "Male"(Line 2).

This leads to the conclusion that someone first created a birth certificate composite form as a base. Then he/she superimposed selected parts onto that composite form. Here we can see the words "Kapiolani" and "Male" to be some of these superimposed words. We know that these words were added separately from the underlying composite form because the angle of the words as they appear in the image is not consistent with the angle on the underlying composite form text which was caused by scaning from a book.

So, apart from the kerning in the word "Kapiolani," now we see that the word itself was added later to the underlying composite form. Both the kerning and the parallax problem show that the word "Kapiolani" was not part of the underlying composite form but was later added to it. And the kerning shows us that it was added with a computer rather than with a typewriter in 1961.

This is strong evidence that the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.

Where is Congress and the FBI to step in and take over this investigation? How much more evidence do they need?

SO..if this is a forged document...wouldnt it be like..obligatory...for the DOH in HI to step up. After all, this information is diseminated on a national level, a claim of ignorance would be negligent indeed.

It may be, the forgery was committed in the DOH right there in Hawaii. Surely, with the socialist movement as strong as it is in Hawaii, and the control of the government entity by unions and demoncrat leaning state employee's, it would not be difficult to find help at the right price.

If you ever typed on the old typewritters, you know how much the tab would need to be used in an environment that did these birth certificates every day of the week.

I spotted this on the site with the Nordyke twins certificates side by side with BHO's.

Both of the twins certificate are the same. The tabs used are identical. This is how I used to fill out forms in the Army. Tabs are set to speed up the work.

In Obama's certificate, the spacing is all over the place. For someone who typed these with such skill as demonstrated in the twins certificates, then to look at BHO's, and the tabs are almost forgotten in several locations.

Take the word male in BHO's, it begins directly behint the "s" in Sex. But both of the twins begin at about the half way point in between the number "2" and Sex, about 2 spaces off. This set is left stop, the typewritter would be set exactly to the margin space automatically. They were not done on the same typewritter, or by the same clerk.

Strange how that works, all 3 were born in the same hospital, on the same weekend, and the following monday all of thier BC's were signed. It would only take 1 person to type the BC's for the whole weekend. A trained clerk doing forms like this could crank out a birth certificate in under 5 minutes. They could have delivered 100 babies that weekend and the same clerk should be doing these all on the following Monday.

BHO was born on Aug 4 61 after hours. The twins were born August 5th about 2 in the afternoon. Both Mothers signed the BC's on the following Monday. It appears that the same clerk dated all 3 documents if you look close at the handwritting on the certificates, even though all 3 mothers would have been very capable of doing so themselves. This is a tell on the clerk getting signatures, it was the same person, and it very well could have been the source for a forgery to created BHO's. If this were a systematic thing, a job a person did every day, it would be totally consistence, but it is not.

Combined with the kearning, and the off set letters that dont match the curve of the document scan, it really leans toward a forgery from the DOH in Hawaii. Onaka certified this document.

The evidence gleaned from a lousy Internet PDF file, plus the allegation that there is no Birth Certificate cross-referenced to the Death Certificate of baby Virginia (note: the third letter of Virginia and Barack is an R)certainly merits a physical examination of the bound volume of Birth Certificates in the 151 61 1041 series . . . it is possible there is revealed here substantive evidence of Identity Theft and Fraud.

I keep asking people this question and no one answers it, or alternatively they ignore it, but it is critical:

What did Obama / Hawaii DOH claim that this document is? Did they claim it was the 1961 original? I don't think they ever said that in the least. All they said was, here is my long form.

Yes, this document was created recently. But is that illegal? Mario, why has HDOH linked the white house blog if they haven't "verified" it? It seems they have.

Someone needs to press them on the reality of the document. The stamp on it CLEARLY demonstrates that it may be an "ABSTRACT" which I would think (again thank you lawyers) has given them carte blanche to "create" a new "long form" document.

The question is, and you'll probably never get it, what forms were used to compile into this document?

Do you really think Obama has just created this one his own? If he has, why has HDOH linked his blog telling others to go see it?

At this point, given the facts, HDOH is in on it, it is a full blown conspiracy, if the long form details are covered up or not truthful to what they have in the "original" record, whatever that means.

Kanbun said..."Mario,The obot whiners are (have been) referring to a case that defines Natural Born Citizen as persons born within the borders of the United States....regardless of the citizenship of their parents.The case is Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App. Ct. 2009).I'm sure you are aware of this. How is this rebutted?"

In the Ankeny case the judge said that he relied on the guidance of the Wong Kim Ark case.The Wong Kim Ark case doesn't rule NBC, but it is discussed in WKA.In WKA the Chief Justice Horace Gray relies on an absurd notion, cherry-picked from English common law case i.e. Calvin's case, where a child born in England of an alien visitor in England is a natural born subject, but if you read the text of Calvin's case you will find that the alien visitor to England is a subject of the king, but if he is not a subject (not visiting England as a friend) then his child, even when born in England, cannot be a natural born subject.In other words, English common law holds that the parent father must be a subject of the king, for his child to be a natural born subjects.Ankeny case is based on error.

Cmdr maybe this is just for you and Mario. If you are aware of this please excuse me. I did this with the BC fraud posted. If you want more information email me cpanon@yahoo.com. Remove if posted.

Please make screenshots and/or pdfs of everything of merit. You create screenshots with shift-printScreen, and then open up Wordpad and paste it in. You can purchase a pdf writer for <$50 and install it and you will have a printer in every application, including your browser, that can "print" the entire screen to a file that you will name and save somewhere on your drive.

YOU ARE NOT DONE, you must do more. The website, is fungible and can be revised as the 1984 revisionists from Google to Wikipedia to the HIDOH officials show. Your document timestamp is worthless. What you must do is get a legally admissible timestamp from Digistamp. Get an account, install the software very easy as it is Web Start. Now you can timestamp the file. But you must further export EACH PKCS7 document and keep it with the source. Finally you must save both document to some removable media.

"The historical record and case law from our U.S. Supreme Court show that an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother under the doctrine that the wife's allegiance and citizenship merged into that of the husband upon marriage which prevailed during the Founding). This is the only American common law definition that we have ever had of the clause and it has never changed, not by any case law, Congressional Act, or by the 14th Amendment."

However, he does not agree with me. He asks:

"I haven't read all of these posts, nor researched for years on end... but can you actually prove this through: quotations from that of every signer of the declaration of indpenedence, every US court case pertaining to citizenship, and every constitutional scholar?"

What Jermoe expects me to prove is not the legal standard needed to be met when arguing that a certain clause in the Constituiton has a certain meaning.

This is what I further told him:

"To prove that you are correct in arguing that an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is simply a child born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents, you could not meet the same standard that you ask that I meet to prove my definition.

As far as legal (including U.S. Supreme Court cases) and historical support for my argument that a 'natural born Citizen' is a child born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen father and mother, you will find it in my briefs filed in the federal court in the Kerchner case and in essays on this blog.

On the contrary, you have no U.S. Supreme Court case that supports your definition of a 'natural born Citizen.'"

Note how those who support a "born on soil" definition of "natural born Citizen" expect others like me who have a different definition of that clause to prove that they are correct based on some standard which they themselves cannot meet to prove that they are correct in their position.

Those who argue for "jus soli" "natural born citizenship" have suffered from this infirmity from day one but simply refuse to admit it.

We have to understand that we have the historical and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that support the defition of "natural born Citizen" to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. On the other hand, Obama's defenders simply do not have that evidence to support their jus soli "natural born Citizen" definition.

ACTION ALERT — Call or email or write to Gov Fallin of OK and ask her to support and sign the presidential constitutional eligibility vetting bill SB91 into law. Contact information and details below.————————————————————————-This presidential constitutional eligibility vetting bill in OK needs the help of every American. Please help by making a phone call, send an email, or write to Gov. Mary Fallin of OK to sign SB 91. A phone call is the best as compared to just an email. And both are better than just doing one. When you ask the Gov to support and sign the bill, ask the person you are speaking with … what is the Governor’s position on this issue and the bill and then post it in the blogs your frequent. Please make the phone call now … if you can. I have. Thank you

The Secretary of the State Election Board, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall determine the qualifications to hold each elective office as such requirements are set forth in the Constitution or laws of the United States and the Constitution or laws of this state. The Secretary shall cause the qualifications for each office to be published on the State Election Board website and shall distribute such information along with candidate filing materials.

Who will make sure that the Secretary of State Election Board and the Attorney General of Oklahoma will come up with the correct requirements for the office of president?

So many people assume that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to prove that you are a natural born citizen that I wouldn't be a bit surprised if all that the SOSEB and AG come up is that they require a birth certificate.

What bothers me is that it seems people who should know better sometimes don't go beyond what is accepted as "common knowledge." Can we trust that the Oklahoma SOSEB and AG will ask themselves the tough questions and come up with the correct answers? I certainly hope so.

Someone with knowledge and authority needs to make sure that Oklahoma does come up with the proper definition of natural born citizen.

The courts admit that there are two legal principles of citizenship at birth: 1) jus sanguinis, and 2) jus solis.

Minor vs Happersett admitted in dicta that jus sanguinis was a certainty, and defined a natural born citizen under that principle.

Dozens of jurists relied on English common law, not admitting or realizing such colonial reliance solely on jus solis was superseded by those same common law principles by the 1790 Act, et seq., and conflicted with English statute mentioned by their 'god' Blackstone, making those children who were citizens 'by descent' (jus sanguinis) also natural born subjects.

The conflict of law created by relying on both sanguinis (naturalization acts) and solis (14th Amendment as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark) is a serious issue.

This conflict of law has resulted in abuses of illegal immigration and the bankrupting of state social services, and MedicAid.

Most recently, it has allowed the son of a British subject to claim Article II eligibility merely by producing prima facie evidence of Hawaiian birth . . . and now an obvious forgery in Adobe Illustrator PDF formate of a long form birth certificate http://3danimation-spark01.info/obama-birth-certificate-faked-in-adobe-illustrator-official-proof-4-ocr-optimizing/

"Please make screenshots and/or pdfs of everything of merit. You create screenshots with shift-printScreen, and then open up Wordpad and paste it in. You can purchase a pdf writer for <$50 and install it and you will have a printer in every application, including your browser, that can "print" the entire screen to a file that you will name and save somewhere on your drive."

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.